Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

the government argued that she "implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cell phone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in an ongoing criminal investigations [sic]."

They're not doing anything to hide the fact that she assisted them, they're actually arguing that she gave them permission to create the account when she gave them permission to access her phone. Even if their argument doesn't hold up in court, they're still acknowledging she gave them some assistance by allowing them to access her phone. You could maybe claim they're downplaying how much she assisted them, but it seems more likely this is exactly what it looks like and they created the account without her knowledge.

While I completely agree and feel a handful of people should get locked up for this, I'm no longer shocked to see laws and punishments not being applied fairly to corporations. It wasn't long ago we saw a company get away with killing three hundred people.

Nice job picking out the only quote in the entire thing that suggests Macs are more expensive. You can buy a PC for less than Dell or anyone else charges too if you buy the components yourself. If you actually read the article (instead of deliberately taking out one quote that runs counter to the rest of it) you'll see that between the comparisons they did, the Mac is equal to one system and $200 less than the other. When the components were priced out separately to build a Mac Pro clone, you could save a whopping $5.67. So while they say there's little doubt you could get one for less, they don't actually manage to, and the quote you chose runs counter to the entire rest of the article. But then, that's why you chose the quote, since there's no actual evidence anywhere of Macs being overpriced besides statements from PC fanboys. They don't offer any real budget models or anything, but that's far from the same issue. Personally, I see the value in Macs, it takes a lot less effort to keep it running well for a very long time, and the fact that most people hear that and say you've set your computer up wrong only proves that point. I have two at home that we use regularly, and they're great. But, I also keep a custom PC running Windows 7 for gaming, because it is definitely easier to upgrade than even the Mac Pro and I don't have to wait for ports. There are definitely many pros and cons to each side, but the price isn't really an issue for Apple unless you're only trying to buy a budget system. It's really only fanboys who still say it, and the fact that you deliberately took that one quote out of context knowing what the rest of the article contains suggests that's all you are, continuing on even when you know you're wrong.

As for $7-10k being an absurd amount for an individual to spend on one computer, I'm aware, you'll see I already pointed out most people wouldn't notice any benefit from doing so. However, like I said before, if you're a criminal and you know you're not going to pay for it, why not go all out?

Hasn't this idea been debunked many times? Oh yeah, it has, at this point it's only fools and trolls who say it. If you can't imagine spending that much on one computer, even a Windows PC with power beyond anything you'll ever actually need, I suspect you must have stopped buying computers shortly after that first one. I've worked for businesses that don't mind dropping $10,000 on a single system, and that's not even the upper limit. That doesn't mean everyone's going to go out and spend that much or would even notice any benefit from doing so, but if you know you're a criminal stealing it anyway, you may as well go all out.

I wish I had mod points. Every time I hear about planets not being able to support life, this is my first thought. While it's possible that there's no radically different life forms in the universe, until we actually go out and see it, we don't really know. I'm not even sure if we should call it unlikely until we've managed to examine the planets outside out solar system more closely. Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting it and I'll be amazed if we find anything so different from ourselves, but I don't think we should rule out the possibility.

I wonder how they managed to work out a deal with the publishers to make this work, if they already have. I was under the impression at least a couple publishers were displeased with Amazon's practices, that was supposedly part of the reason they were offering Apple a better deal than Amazon. I'd like to see this service succeed, though, so hopefully everyone who matters is or will be on board. Maybe one day, a monthly fee to Amazon will allow you access to all media, whether it's movies, books, games, or anything else you can get over the internet. I don't agree with everything Amazon does, but this idea is very appealing to me.

This was my first thought as well. I feel like UAVs in particular from this technology, they could designate several targets from the sky and fire a few rounds, taking out the targets with no collateral damage. It could help save soldiers' lives as well, imagine them being able to designate targets from behind cover and shoot without revealing more than their hands. The potential really is limitless, hopefully this technology can be applied to less specialized uses than long-range sniping. Imagine computer-assisted targeting for police so they can target an assailant's weapon instead of killing them in a situation that might normally end with a death.

It's just something the author said because it's catchy. From an interview here:

The “three felonies a day” is really a figure of speech, hardly an exact count. People who are very active in certain fields likely commit more than three arguable federal felonies a day. People who are less active in life and in commerce probably commit fewer. I would imagine that lawyers, accountants, and securities dealers commit more, while fruit-stand vendors commit fewer. But my point was that an active member of our society goes about his or her busy workday not realizing the potential for committing arguable federal felonies in a wide variety of business and personal endeavors on a typical day.

So no, we don't really commit three felonies a day. I'm sure the book explains this, but apparently nobody has time to read a whole book anymore so the title became a "fact" that pops up on the internet from time to time.

My brother in law is a local cop where I live, and he says the same thing. Do not trust cops. They are just people, some of them are nice, but some of them are not and will enjoy slapping cuffs on you for next to nothing. His advice was along the lines of be respectful, don't talk back, don't ever physically resist them, and don't tell them anything unless you called them. They will get annoyed, but if you're not being outright disrespectful they will generally let it go. Most of the time, they'd rather be getting real criminals off the streets, anyway.

Can you explain to me what the medical problem is causing everyone to be obese? Oh you can't? Because there's nothing to actually say there's a medical reason for it other than a bunch of overweight people who insist they can't do anything about it. There are extremely rare conditions that can cause weight gain, but these are the minority cases. Most people have no reason for being obese, only excuses, and those aren't worth anything.

As for choosing to be 450lbs, obviously nobody wakes up one day and says, "Damn, I want to break couches when I sit down!" but every time you choose to drink a soda instead of water, or you choose to eat chips instead of an apple, or you choose to get McDonalds instead of damn near anything else, you are choosing to keep being unhealthy.

In a time where you can order a healthy balanced diet in powdered form over the internet, none of us has an excuse for eating so poorly. None of us ever had an excuse for failing to exercise just a little bit, we just make them up anyway.

Just to keep things in perspective, I come from a family of overweight and obese people, and I've put a great deal of effort into developing healthier habits than them to stay healthy. I fell off the wagon after college and gained weight rapidly, but got right back on it and the weight came back off. Your claim that to lose 22lb in 3 months is absurd unless you truly don't do anything, all day, as that much food would provide you with a mere hundred calories a day and that is no attempt at weight loss, that's trying to starve yourself to death. The fact that you'd make such a claim shows you've put literally no effort into finding out how to eat right and be healthy. You sound a lot like my aunt did, before she decided to stop eating fast food and start hitting the gym once a week. She's in her late fifties now, and she's gone from weighing close to 300lbs her entire adult life to weighing under 200 now, all in the last 6-7 years. She took inspiration from my cousins, who took inspiration from my mother, who took it from my father, all of whom have lost a lot of weight since deciding to stop being unhealthy. My parents' exercise consists of walking the beach a few nights a week when the weather is nice enough, and in New England that's not even that often, but it was enough to shed the pounds they've always had.

Stop making excuses, you're not convincing anyone, I've personally known too many people like you who made excuses all their lives until they decided they were done being unhealthy. Obesity is a new epidemic, not something humans have been grappling with for centuries. If you'd stop making excuses and actually put the effort in and try to put together a balanced diet while cutting out all the crap you usually eat you'd realize obese is not a natural state for anyone.

I used hair because it was the easiest to pick on out of the examples in the post I was replying to. As for judging by appearances, while I understand it doesn't always seem fair, you'd be an idiot to think that something like spikey blue hair won't make some people think differently of you. That's the whole reason you have it. I'm sorry, but this is the world we live in. If I see a guy walk into a Chili's with an assault rifle, I'm going to think he's a psycho, and if I see a guy with spikey blue hair walk into a job interview, I'm going to think he doesn't care if he gets the job.

Is it fair? No, of course not. But if you choose to express yourself using hair dye and body art, you're turning yourself into art that others will interpret differently, and sometimes they'll interpret your blue spikey hair and tattoos in a way that means they don't want to hire you. It's become too common for people to think they can dress themselves up to stand out and not be judged for it, they're obviously trying to make an impression with their appearance, stop complaining when it works.

I don't think it is a matter of "more rights", any more than you get "more rights" when you turn 40 and enter that legally protected class in the US.

The big difference being that you can't stop yourself from aging, you can stop yourself from becoming obese. Short of rare (much more rare than obese folks want you to think) medical conditions, nobody has an excuse to be obese, you're not born that way and you're not naturally inclined to become that way without excessively unhealthy habits.

How people look doesn't really matter to most technical workers, but would you rather hire the ideal-weight handsome person, or the 450 pound ugly guy?

Without a doubt, the ideal-weight handsome guy, because the 450lb obese guy demonstrates simply by being obese he lacks basic self control, and likely doesn't have the discipline I desire from employees. If you look like you can't be bothered to give a damn about your own personal health, why would I expect you to give a damn about your arguably less important job? Not to mention as an employer I don't want the added risk of somebody overworking themselves and having a heart attack on the job, something which seems less likely in an individual who appears healthy.

Yes, employers discriminate, because otherwise they'd be forced to hire every yahoo that strolls in and their business would suffer for it. Some qualities shouldn't be subject to discrimination; ethnicity, sexuality, gender, and plenty more. But obesity? To be obese is, generally speaking, a choice. Most people don't want to accept that, but it's the truth, every day you choose not to start exercising and eating healthy is a day you choose to remain obese. A lot of people argue they don't have time to exercise or the money to eat healthy, but it doesn't take much searching to find helpful advice from folks who thought the same thing until they realized they were completely wrong.

If an employer tells you he's not going to hire you because they maintain a professional workplace and your hair is blue and spikey, you can either choose to do something about your hair or you can throw a fit and act like it's not reasonable to want your employees to give the impression they're employed when people walk in the door and either one is your right. The same with obesity, if somebody tells you your ass won't fit in their chairs so they can't hire you, you can either throw a fit and act like they should invest in all new office furniture to cater to you, or you can go get a bike and invest in your own health, come back and get the job looking (and feeling) like a new person.